The Supremes Abolish 4th Amendment

Amazing1914

Just a couple of days ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in a case that has demolished the 4th Amendment which states:

Amendment IV : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Previously, you were secure in your person, including your cloths, car, house, etc. But, a few years ago, the police stopped a man for a routine traffic offense. The officer became suspecious simply because the driver appeared nervous. The officer got a drug sniffing dog to sniff out the car, and they found $250,000 worth of marijuana. True, we want to get drug trafficers, but at what cost.

The officers did not have probable cause. They did not have warrants. They did not name or specify the places to be searched or things to be seized. No, instead the court ruled that the officers did not need a warrant or have any probable cause beyond simple suspecion. Now that the 4th Amendment is abolished, officers can, upon simple suspecion, invade your home, or whatever place or thing you consider sacred to yourself, including strip searches, use of truth serum to get inside your mind, or anything else ... just to see what you may have.

Read all about it here: Illinois v. Caballes

The question is: What are we the people going to do about it? Do we give a damn?

Jim Whitney

Englishman

I thought this was going to be about Dianna Ross..

Englishman.

Amazing1914

E-Man,

I wish it were Diana Ross ... I would feel much better. - Jim W.

Golf

It doesn't surprise me. All the amendments following the original ten are designed to destroy the original. The wording of the following amendments are crafty and deceitful. Does one think that the politicians really believe in the Constitution? If they do, they better think again. Did George Bush really take an oath to uphold the Constitution?

About the Constitution, here's an interesting site if anyone is interested in viewing. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NO Treason/NoTreason.html

Guest77

kwintestal

What are we the people going to do about it? Do we give a damn?

Since I'm in Canada my answers are nothing, and no.

However, Canada's supreme court upheld this just a few months ago, saying that it was illegal to search even someone's pockets, since someone puts things in their pockets for privacy. Mind you, in Canada we have a "Privacy Act" that protects us, instead of a PATRIOT ACT that ... what does that do for you again?

Kwin

roybatty

Your post isn't exactly accurate. He got a dog to sniff the ouside of the car, at which time the dog began to indicate that illegal drugs were in the car. It wasn't that the man refused to allow the officer to search his car and he went ahead and did so.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Two exp. come to mind. The first one is a childhood friend who became a police officer and is now a detective. He commented that "probable cause" is easy to justify. Secondly, I had a secretary who's husband was a police officer that worked with local DEA agents. She said that they fly in helicopters with equipment that can scan homes to detect the special indoor lighting needed to grow plants. I guess people grow pot in their basements in order to hide it from the police but the police can scan their homes to detect this light. I'm sure they don't have warrents to do this.

One thing that does surprise me is the roadblocks the police are allowed to set up to catch drunk drivers. It's one thing to have a reason to pull someone over and then suspect that they're up to something, it's something else to pull over every driver coming down the road and check to see if they have been drinking.

Golf

View these links:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-12-92-oppo...

http://www.americalivefree.org/action.html What can we do?

James Madison said, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

Louis D. Brandeis.

Guest77

Amazing1914

Roybatty,

Your post isn't exactly accurate. He got a dog to sniff the ouside of the car, at which time the dog began to indicate that illegal drugs were in the car. It wasn't that the man refused to allow the officer to search his car and he went ahead and did so.

My post is perfectly accurate. The man got nervous, and the officer decided to get out the drug sniffing dog. The man did not consent. He had men with guns and badges deciding to do what they want to do.

It is a big deal, not so much because they caught a someone carrying drugs ... that I don't care so much about ... it is the remifications of the ruling ... and with the American people going to sleep at the wheel, we are losing our rights, left and right.

Golf: Excellent points!

Bryan

officers can, upon simple suspecion, invade your home, or whatever place or thing you consider sacred to yourself, including strip searches, use of truth serum to get inside your mind, or anything else ... just to see what you may have.

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are a little over the top. No one is going to start crashing into our homes or stip searching us tomorrow because of this ruling. I personaly am glad the cops got the guy. There was suspecion on the part of the police man... I know, I know... Then any cop can say they were suspecious and do what they want!

Sorry, don't buy it. If your not doing anything wrong, why would you worry?

My own personal opinion.

Bryan

Have You Seen My Mother

The Supremes Abolish 4th Amendment

Share this